The Republican War On Science... - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 04-20-2009, 12:54 PM

The Republican War On Science
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...n-science.html

House Republican leader Boehner, as part of his "Operation Enduring Minority", displays a dismal unawareness of global warming science: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7373578

[quote]BOEHNER: George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it's clear...
[/qutoe]

Oh, my - now we are doing cow flatulence jokes, as we continue to scale the comedic peaks. Look, cows and sheep emit methane, as do teenage boys with cigarette lighters. Carbon dioxide doesn't burn.

Can we get back to teabagging jokes now?

I PASS ALONG THIS KNOWLEDGE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561039911777481.html

Quote:

The root of the problem is that sheep, cows, goats and other so-called ruminants are unique in the way they digest their food. While that allows them to convert more energy from grasses, the process also generates hydrogen as a byproduct. Microbes known as methanogens convert the hydrogen to methane, which then leaves the animal through belching -- and to a lesser extent, flatulence -- and then floats into the atmosphere, where it helps to trap heat and potentially accelerate global warming. Humans emit methane, too, but not so much.

The UN tackled this in "Livestock's Long Shadow". ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/A0701E03.pdf Per their executive summary, carbon dioxide associated with animal respiration is a minor issue (since cows are growing they are probably a net carbon sink, actually.) Methane and ammonia are problems.

The Independent had this to say about the UN report: http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...rs-427843.html

Quote:

Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME WHAT I AM ASKING YOU: Stepanopolous and Boehner go round and round on climate change:

Quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it sounds like from what you're saying that you don't believe that Republicans need to come up with a plan to control carbon emissions? You're suggesting it's not that big of a problem, even though the scientific consensus is that it has contributed to the climate change.

BOEHNER: I think it is -- I think it is an issue. The question is, what is the proper answer and the responsible answer?

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what is the answer? That's what I'm trying to get at.

BOEHNER: George, I think everyone in America is looking for the proper answer. We don't want to raise taxes, $1.5 to $2 trillion like the administration is proposing, and we don't want to ship millions of American jobs overseas. And so we've got to find ways to work toward this solution to this problem without risking the future for our kids and grandkids.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you are committed to coming up with a plan?

BOEHNER: I think you'll see a plan from us. Just like you've seen a plan from us on the stimulus bill and a better plan on the budget.

Back when Doonesbury was readable there was a great strip with Duke and his Oriental aide. The Duke had been snubbed by some officials somewhere and was ranting to his aide about how this insult would never stand and they would soon face the wrath of an angry man. The aide, long inured to these tirades, said something like "So, sir, do you have a plan?". To which the Duke replied "A plan! That's right, I'll need a plan".

Or so I remember it. I guess Stepanopolous could be cast as the aide in his little skit with Boehner, who clearly would make a great Duke.

And here is an IPCC paper on the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter2.pdf

See also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_188688.html

mikej · 04-20-2009, 10:19 PM

Carbon Dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas. Creationism is not science.

Jolie Rouge · 04-21-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikej

Carbon Dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas. Creationism is not science.

: Dude, what are you :smoking: ?? Try and stay on topic ....

Who brought up creationism in this thread ?

How is that relevant ?

jasmine · 04-21-2009, 01:39 AM

allright now, everyone fart at once

sorry, just had to say it!! LOL

Jolie Rouge · 04-21-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikej

Carbon Dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas.

According to this site : http://www.answers.com/topic/greenhouse-gas CO2 is a "green house gas" because it absorbs outgoing terrestrial radiation, as listed is water vapor ( ie : clouds, rain, fog, ect ). Going back to grammar school science class; animals inhale O, exhale CO2; plants intake CO2 and produce O.

If Boehner would like to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, all he has to do is stop talking ... or breathing. Please explain the alternatives ...

Jasmine ... that was bad ... bad ... bad... funny as hades ... but bad...

:

Jolie Rouge · 04-22-2009, 12:34 AM

Wait ... don't hold your breath yet ....

Do Fat People Cause Global Warming?
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3787

As if Al Gore weren’t rich enough! Now he’s figured out yet another way to get ‘carbon footprint offsets’. A new study coming out of the United Kingdom (from researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) has determined that fat people cause global warming!

: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...-RSS&ATTR=News Yowser! Get on the treadmill!

I can see a new fat tax coming down the road. Do you think the Obama Administration will charge by the pound?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/s...global-warming

Perhaps solutions to the fat global warming problem will be to ration food or just go straight into extermination of fatties.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/2...rming-fatties/

Glenn Beck thinks that Sumo wrestlers are very nervous about now.

http://theglennbeck912project.com/20...se-big-people/

stresseater · 04-22-2009, 01:21 AM

Well yeah I have been saying for years after the smokers they would come for the fatties. Guess now maybe others will be upset about big brother.

SurferGirl · 04-22-2009, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikej

Carbon Dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas. Creationism is not science.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Evolution is only a theory.

Jolie Rouge · 04-24-2009, 02:19 PM

Gore, Gingrich face off on climate
Lisa Lerer
1 hr 52 mins ago

Former Vice President Al Gore pushed Congress to find the “moral courage” to create a cap-and-trade system, endorsing a sweeping climate change proposal as “one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress.”

“I believe this legislation has the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the Marshall Plan of the late 1940s,” he said in testimony delivered to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Friday morning.

Gore’s testimony will be followed today by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who plans to blast the bill as “wrong for our national security ... wrong for our economy,” while detailing his own 38-point climate change plan — which he pitches as “green conservatism.”

The two party leaders are testifying back to back after days of hearings that included dozens of witnesses from business, government and environmental groups to testify on the controversial legislation. Friday’s panel included former Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who supported taking action on climate change but cautioned against moving too quickly.

The panelists lend star power to climate change legislation establishing a cap-and-trade system, an idea backed by the administration, environmentalists and some business groups. But the proposal faces serious opposition from Republicans and some Democrats worried that new regulations could hurt the already-struggling economy by raising energy costs for consumers and business.

“I am not satisfied that this bill has adequate protections for our workers and our industries” former Energy Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) told Gore. Dingell and other Democrats from Rust Belt states fear that forcing companies to buy carbon emissions could push trade-sensitive, fossil-fuel intensive industries such as steel and paper overseas.

Gore, a Nobel Prize winner who now heads several environmental groups, argued that the climate change legislation could address the three largest threats facing the country: the climate crisis, the economic downturn and national security threats.

He praised draft legislation introduced three weeks by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, increasing funding for renewable fuels and modernizing the electricity grid.

But Waxman and Markey’s proposal, said Gingrich, closes off domestic sources of energy like shale oil resources in the Rocky Mountains and will raise energy prices on consumers and business.

“Make no mistake about it: This bill amounts to a $1 [trillion] to $2 trillion energy tax levied on a struggling economy, which is destructive and wrong,” Gingrich said in prepared testimony, echoing Republican concerns that a cap-and-trade system would increase electricity prices.

Gore, meanwhile, argues that global warming has caused a number of environmental changes, including more severe hurricanes, increased flooding and the acidification of oceans.

Three weeks ago, Waxman and Markey unveiled an outline of draft legislation that would establish a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide and set new standards for renewable energy.

The proposal takes a slightly more aggressive stance than the Obama administration, recommending a 20 percent cut from 2005 carbon emission levels by 2020. The Obama budget targets a 14 percent cut over the same period.

But their draft avoids some of the most difficult questions, like whether pollution credits will be auctioned off or given away to polluting companies. It also doesn’t address how the revenue collected from the cap-and-trade system would be spent or used to offset higher energy bills for consumers.

Gore said the legislation must “include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...9yZWdpbmdyaWNo

Jolie Rouge · 05-19-2009, 12:29 PM

Hey, Al Gore: How will Waxman-Markey save the planet?
By Steve Milloy Tuesday, May 19, 2009

May 18, 2009
Dear Al Gore,

How will the Waxman-Markey bill — legislation that you have endorsed — save the planet from the disaster that you claim is imminent?

You have said that, http://www.climatecrisis.net/aboutthefilm/

Quote:

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

But under the fantasy emission-reduction scenario of the Waxman-Markey bill, the U.S. would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from more than 7 billion tons today to about 5.6 billion tons in 2020 — the level at which U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were in 1988 when NASA’a James Hansen famously sounded the alarm about global warming in congressional testimony.

So in a sense, after ten years of Waxman-Markey we’d only be back at square one.

Meanwhile, worldwide CO2 emissions are projected to increase from about 30 billion tons in 2009 to about 37 billion tons in 2020. Even if the Waxman-Markey fantasy came true and U.S. emissions were reduced by 1.4 billion tons, worldwide CO2 emissions would still increase to about 35.6 billion tons annually.

Pray tell, Mr. Gore, how will Waxman-Markey avert the “major catastrophe” that you say we only have ten years to avoid?

And while you’re spinning the answer to that one, Mr. Gore, would it be possible to get a list of your investments that would benefit from the Waxman-Markey bill?

Sincerely,

Your friends at http://www.JunkScience.com

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11218

Jolie Rouge · 06-30-2009, 01:16 AM

Why not get to the real evidence.

Carbon dioxide is present in the atmosphere at about one tenth the ratio of water vapor, the main greehouse gas. Carbon dioxide only reflects energy in certain infrared wavelengths, most of which are already reflected by water vapor. Extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has less effect the the previous unit of carbon because of the filter effect. Over 96% of the atmosphere carbon dioxide is emitted from nonhuman sources. The half life of carbon dioxide in the amosphere is under 20 years. Statistical Regression analysis of real data demonstrates that earth temperatures correlate to the solar magnetic field, not the amount of carbon dioxide. I could go on, but would have to use more space.

I keep asking, and I’ll ask your readers here: has anyone heard or seen published ANY ONE, POSITIVE BENEFIT THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY OCCUR DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE, EITHER COOLING, OR WARMING? ANY BODY? JUST ONE?

Until the discussion is far more balanced, I’m going to continue to smell a rat, the kind of rat that moves money/goods out of the public’s pockets, into the pockets of a chosen few. ;o/

AGW is not based on science, it’s basically a religous cult, and a rather primitive one at that.

Christianity matured past its worst excesses hundreds of years ago, but the AGW crowd glorifies in them today.

Carbon credits, for example, are nothing more than the old indulgence system where you paid off the right church official in return for your sins being covered up. The only difference is that the church official is now Al Gore.

My biggest problem with global warming is the absolute certitude of some of its’ proponents (Example: Al Gore stating that “The science has been settled!”).

Let’s try for some perspective, time-wise.

For those comfortable with the metric (S.I.) system, imagine a line about 4.6 kilometers long (a bit under 3 miles). That would represent the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth at 1,000,000 ears/meter; 1 mm (about the thickness of a paper clip) would represent a THOUSAND years.

That line would span the downtown area of quite a few large cities, with some to spare. Here in Houston, the downtown streets are 16 to the mile, making their spacing about 100 meters. Thus, that line would be about 46 blocks.

The reign of the dinosaurs ended around 65 million years ago (65 meters, about 2/3 of a city block down that line from today).

The first of our ancestors verging on intelligence may have emerged from 2 to 4 million years ago (2 to 4 meters, say 6.5 to 13 feet; your living room could be around 4 meters in one of its’ dimensions).

What we call “modern” man may go back 40,000 years or so (40 mm, TWO finger-widths on that line).

Written history goes back 6000 years (six millimeters, 1/4 inch on that line).

Fahrenheit’s thermometer is around 300 years old ( 0.3 mm, you’re approaching the thickness of a business card now, or the diameter of a grain of salt).

The portion of that time-line during which precise temperature measurements were recorded would be literally microscopic.

And from that portion, we dare to make really long range climate predictions, and mandate actions based on them?

I live about three miles west of some of Houston’s major downtown buildings, so I can easily visualize that line.

Looking at that time-line of Earth’s history (the universe’s may be four times that), and the flyspeck of our own existence upon it, the notion of asserting that ANY science has been “settled” strikes me as arrogance beyond comprehension (as in “only a politician could possibly believe that”).

When logic is outlawed……only outlaws will have logic.